Oh no!

Health, Fitness, Food, Insurance, Longevity, Diets,...
Post Reply
Michael_00005
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 12:26 pm
Location: East coast USA

Oh no!

Post by Michael_00005 »

Oh no, not another study on how eating meat makes you sick! And why does it have to be one of the largest studies ever? These are becoming more and more difficult to explain away. Some of my fellow ERE meat lovers should like this one:)


https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/lar ... nd-disease

Study:
http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957

I used to think people who go off on the: "it's a vegan propaganda" theme were simply too far gone to help, but then read the following article. To his credit it looks like he did the research. In his own words:
When I accidentally started to read vegan literature, I kept it in the back of my head that this is all a bunch of you know what. It took me time to open up to the truth. Hopefully, you are wiser than I am.
The stuff at the bottom of this article is very good, maybe with the exception of a "40 year old vegan dies of heart attack", I say this because his speaking skill were not good when he 1st started giving speeches.

https://badassu.net/100-scientific-reas ... -eat-meat/

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Oh no!

Post by Dragline »

Did you actually read it? I tend to think not, as it has nothing to do with veganism, but rather weakly recommends eating unprocessed white meat. The correlation between red meat consumption and other bad habits was the most significant, though.

"Participants with higher red meat consumption were more likely to be male, non-Hispanic white, and current smokers and to have diabetes, poor or fair perception of their health status, and less physical activity. They were also less likely to have high socioeconomic status scores and to be college graduates or postgraduates. Red meat consumption was also associated with lower fruit and vegetable intake, higher body mass index and energy intake, and higher intakes of heme iron and processed meat nitrate and nitrite."

"People in the highest category of white meat intake had a 25% reduction in risk of all cause mortality compared with the lowest intake level (fig 1⇑, middle panel; hazard ratio 0.75, 0.74 to 0.77). All causes of death showed an inverse association with white meat intake, except for death due to Alzheimer’s disease, and again the strongest inverse association was seen for death due to chronic liver disease (hazard ratio 0.32, 0.24 to 0.42). The reduction in mortality risk was mainly seen for unprocessed white meat, and the association between processed white meat and all cause mortality was weaker for each 20 g/1000 kcal intake increase (supplementary table A). Inverse associations with all cause and specific deaths were present for unprocessed white meat, but processed white meat showed relatively weaker inverse associations, which were significant only for death due to cancer, respiratory disease, and chronic liver disease. Risk of mortality due to Alzheimer’s disease increased with the highest intake of processed white meat but decreased with unprocessed white meat (fig 1⇑, middle panel). Fish intake constituted about one third of the white meat intake in this population (11 g/1000 kcal daily average). When we analyzed the sources of white meat separately, the results were similar; the hazard ratio for all cause mortality was 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94) for each 20 g/1000 kcal increase in daily intake of poultry and 0.95 (0.94 to 0.96) for fish intake (data for cause specific mortality not shown)."

"When we analyzed all processed meat, the risk of death was generally higher with higher intake, but the associations were weaker than for processed red meat (supplementary table A)."

"Processed meat nitrite showed very similar associations with overall mortality (hazard ratio 1.16, 1.14 to 1.18) and most of the major causes of death; the three strongest associations were for death due to kidney disease, respiratory diseases, and diabetes."

"Our findings also show reduced risks associated with substituting white meat (poultry and fish), particularly unprocessed white meat."

Now why exactly did you change "processed red meat" to just "meat" in your post? Thanks for confirming your inherent biases.

Time to break out another can of sardines and choke a chicken. :lol:

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Oh no!

Post by ThisDinosaur »

I'm currently of the opinion that a mostly-plant diet is optimal. I have to confess that one of the things stopping me from going all-in on veganism is the ubiquitous confrontational vegan. Its not a good reason. But the evidence cherry-picking makes me want to disregard this stuff as mostly propaganda.

Michael, why do you think your posts about diet come off so aggressive? Why so condescending? I like to be 'right' as in having a worldview that is as close as possible to reality. Your tone makes it seem like you want to be 'right' as in being able to gloat. Am I misreading you?

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Oh no!

Post by BRUTE »

Dragline wrote:
Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:28 pm
Participants with higher red meat consumption were more likely to be male, non-Hispanic white, and current smokers and to have diabetes, poor or fair perception of their health status, and less physical activity. They were also less likely to have high socioeconomic status scores and to be college graduates or postgraduates.
clearly, red meat causes humans to become male and poor, because steak is so manly and expensive. the government should subsidize red meat more! it's not fair!

Post Reply